It's quite obvious that they're trying to target you personally: regardless of their rhetoric that they "don't target individuals", those bombs have an uncanny habit of completely decimating places you happen to have been soon beforehand. You shore up your family in what you presume is a safe haven for their own protection, only for the Americans to bomb it. (Again, suspiciously, you happened to have been there shortly beforehand - you're paranoid at this point that you always seem to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.) You then find that your son (and three of your grandsons, if you believe BBC News) were killed in the blast. Your son just came back from University, and your grandsons never did anything to anyone either. That's OK, they say: indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians in collateral damage is fine, even when the high risks of this were known beforehand. Just as long as individuals aren't targeted, that's what matters.
By this time, your subjects are understandably a bit peeved about the unprovoked attacks, and start campaigning against the invading countries. Some of the wilder bunches of people start attacking what you hope are impartial outsiders - diplomatic missions and aid workers. You can't really do much about this, because you're too busy trying to defend against wave after wave of attacks. Incredibly - and it would be a hilarious farce if not for the present situation - the countries demand that you defend their people, while they continue to bomb the hell out of you.
If you were a Libyan, wouldn't you be a little pissed off by all this, and justifiably so? And why haven't such obvious points been made by the media or the interviewers? Surely journalism should be truth-seeking, hence impartial, hence seeing a situation from all perspectives. And if we can't live by our own values, how can we have the audacity to force them (with utmost violence, in this case) onto someone else? Could it be that all these questions (and the corresponding answers) are being hushed up, for fear of upsetting the propaganda machine?
My (and hopefully your) thoughts are with Gadaffi's family at the moment, who have suffered huge losses at the bloody hands of insurgents that are supposedly on my side, your side, and the side of justice and the truth. Let's hope it's all just a sick joke; the alternative is worse.
- - -
Speaking of the propaganda machine - the world is now safer and better without Osama, says President Obama (well, at least according to the BBC - as you know my favourite news source).
Hang on, let's rewind a bit. Al Qaeda is a well-organised, well-run, talented military group. This is no doubt because they have received training from groups like the Taleban, who in turn (I have to say allegedly) received the best training that various Western Secret Services had to offer. (This seems suspiciously to be missing from the Taleban wikipedia page. You can't have your people having too much access to the truth, can you? How can you brainwash them into supporting you then? And of course I'm not suggesting the article has been sanitised by the American and British governments. Oh no. As we all know, government is of, for and by the people.)
Given the above points, bin Laden would undoubtedly have trained up a next-in-line to take over immediately in the case of his death. So the situation has actually got worse, not "safer and better," because one man, revered by al Qaeda, has been killed by their enemy (increasing their resolve), and an equally-good leader has taken over. Here are some obvious War Office preliminaries:
- Don't train up "terrorist" groups in the first place
- Don't give the proverbial vicious dog a bloody nose. The nose will heal quickly, and it'll just enrage the dog even more
